04-19-2012 (Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 19, 2012
INDEX
Site Plan No. 22-2012 Nigro Companies 1.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-22 through 26
Subdivision No. 2-2012 Joyce Shovah 6.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 295.14-2-36
Subdivision No. 14-2005 Hayes Construction Group 12.
MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 308.06-2-17
Site Plan No. 25-2012
Freshwater Wetlands 2-2012
Site Plan No. 18-2012 Laura Feathers 22.
Tax Map No. 288.12-1-15
Site Plan No. 23-2012 Cumberland Farms, Inc. 24.
Tax Map No. 303.5-1-24
Site Plan No. 24-2012 J. Michael Pugh & Michael Greenwood 32.
Tax Map No. 309.7-1-5
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND
STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES
(IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 19, 2012
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS, SECRETARY
THOMAS FORD
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
BRAD MAGOWAN
DONALD SIPP
DAVID DEEB, ALTERNATE
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on
Thursday, April 19, 2012, and I welcome members of the audience. If you are here for an item,
there are copies of the agendas on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing
procedures. There are public hearings scheduled for, I think, every item this evening, and I'll go
into more detail on the procedures of the public hearing when we get to the first item. Our first
item on the agenda is under Old Business.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 22-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED NIGRO COMPANIES AGENT(S)
BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART RHODES OWNER(S) UPR. GLEN ST. ASSOCIATES, LLC
ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 302.6-1-22 THROUGH 26 SITE PLAN:
APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RETROFIT APPROXIMATELY 8,000 SQUARE FEET OF
VACANT RETAIL SPACE AND INSTALL A 600 SQ. FT. COVERED PATIO IN THE PRICE
RITE PLAZA FOR A RECOVERY SPORTS GRILL. REVISIONS TO AN APPROVED SITE
PLAN AND CHANGE OF USE IN THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM PERMEABILITY AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE.
PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS
REFERENCE AV 20-12; [7 SPR SINCE 1988; 7 SV SINCE 1990; 4 AV SINCE 1988; 1 UV
SINCE 1994] WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 8.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
302.6-1-22 THROUGH 26 SECTION 179-9
STEFANIE BITTER & ERIC REDDING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith, whenever you're ready.
MR. OBORNE-Site Plan 22-2012. Nigro Companies Site Plan Review is the requested action.
735 Glen Street is the location. Commercial Intensive is the zoning and this is an Unlisted
SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant is proposing to retrofit approximately 8,000 square feet
of vacant retail space and install a 600 sq. ft. covered patio in the Price Rite Plaza for a
Recovery Sports Grill. Revisions to an approved site plan and change of use in the Commercial
Intensive zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Last night the Zoning Board of
Appeals approved the relief for the parking. The applicant has offered mitigation above and
beyond the 33 square feet of permeability relief they were looking for. They're giving us, I
believe, an additional 22 square feet, is it, being very generous with their permeability in that
regard. What we have is some Site Plan Review aspects that are absolutely not
insurmountable. I will say that there are a couple of engineering comments in relation to erosion
control for some of the saw cuts they're planning. I would like some clarification on Number
Four and Five of my Staff Notes, if the applicant could be so kind, and with that I'd turn it over to
the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter, together with Jamie Margelot from Nigro and Eric
Redding from Bergman. I know that we were before you on Tuesday night. Jon Lapper there
presenting, relative to the recommendation. So you are aware of the project. Recovery Sports
Grill is the proposed tenant. It will fill 8,000 square feet of a vacancy that currently exists at the
Price Rite Plaza. One hundred and ninety-eight indoor seats are proposed. Twenty-four
outdoor seats are proposed, which will incorporate an outdoor patio, as you're aware. This is
1
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
what resulted in the permeability concern, but as Keith just described, we are recapturing some
permeable space so that there's not going to be a permeability issue. Eric Redding did bring,
this evening, an erosion and sediment control plan to describe to you today to alleviate
Chazen's concerns. He also brought a landscaping plan, which I know that they had promised
on Tuesday night to describe some additional landscaping that we are willing to propose with
the project. Some other comments that were raised by Chazen is one of them was relative to
the permeability which is obviously alleviated by our modification. The other was relative to the
permeable pavers that we're proposing with the patio, and I can let Eric go into more detail, but
we're not proposing any infiltration with those pavers. It was just an added benefit to incorporate
in that construction. Just to address Keith's one last comment about the fencing, there was a
fencing damage during the one snowplowing event that probably occurred this winter, and
Jamie indicated that it might have already been corrected, and if it isn't it will be corrected in the
very near future. I'll turn it over to Eric.
MR. REDDING-For erosion and sediment control plan, this will be included in our final site plan
submission, we're proposing basic erosion and sediment controls such as silt fence. We're
proposing silt fence as needed along the sidewalk here as they're doing the construction in that
area. We're providing silt fence downstream of any saw cuts, any drainage that might flow this
way. Silt sacks will be provided at all inlets that may be affected from any of the construction,
and all of the stockpiles are going to be placed upslope of the trenches. So that if anything
drains it'll go right into the trench, and the last thing is around all trees that are to remain we're
providing fencing around them so that they will be protected during construction.
MR. FORD-What kind of fencing?
MR. REDDING-Just orange construction fence.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions? How about the landscaping? You flipped it over.
MR. REDDING-Yes. Landscaping, we're looking to beef up the two islands out front here in the
corner. In one of the islands we'll propose a white pine, and then the other is going to be a
flowering cherry tree. Around those two trees there's going to be some knock down roses,
decorative grasses and such things like that, and that's what we're proposing at this time as just
an added benefit of the landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions from the Board?
MR. DEEB-The orange construction fencing, that's what you're proposing using?
MR. REDDING-Around the existing trees that are going to remain.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's just during construction.
MR. REDDING-Yes, during construction we'll put up the orange fence around those trees so
they're protected. Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from members of the Board? Where did you
pick up the additional 22 feet, or 33, 1 thought it was 33 feet of relief you needed?
MS. BITTER-Well, 54 is the actual area that, we're recovering 33 square feet was the area that
we're (lost word).
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, 22 feet, I mean, it's 5 by 4. Any additional comments or
questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. The purpose
of the public hearing is for interested citizens to make comments on a project. Is there anyone
in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-Were there any written comments, Keith? I don't think there were on
Tuesday.
MR. OBORNE-1 don't think so. No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will, then, close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-It's an Unlisted action. We didn't do SEQRA the other night, or did we?
2
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. OBORNE-1 don't believe so.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't think we did.
MR. OBORNE-Let me take a look. I apologize.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's okay.
MR. OBORNE-There was one question I had on Number Four in my Staff Notes is concerning
this location here on the curve. Is that landscaping staying or going?
MR. REDDING-That landscaping is staying.
MR. OBORNE-It's staying.
MR. REDDING-It's staying there.
MR. OBORNE-Fabulous. Bear with me, Mr. Chairman.
MR. FORD-The patio area will not interfere with that?
MR. REDDING-The patio area essentially goes on the other side of that sidewalk up into the, up
close to the building. What's there now is just a bunch of groundcover junipers and it looks like
the apple tree, a flowering apple tree.
MR. HUNSINGER-When we were there for site visits Saturday morning we felt that one of those
islands would be perfect for one of the new trees that you've proposed.
MR. REDDING-Yes. I mean, there's some really old landscaping there. I'll probably even put in
a little bed for annual flowers in there, make it real nice.
MR. OBORNE-There's no indication that SEQRA was accomplished. So it's an Unlisted
SEQRA at this point. I guess Short Form would be more than adequate.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Mr. Krebs? Short Form. There's one in the application.
MR. KREBS-"Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-"Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6
NYCRR, Part 617.6?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-"Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1.
Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic
patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding
problems?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or
community or neighborhood character?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
3
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. KREBS-"C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or
threatened or endangered species?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-"C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in
use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-"C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by
the proposed action?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-"C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-"C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?"
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-"Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused
the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-"Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?"
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-I'll make a motion for a Negative Declaration for SEQRA.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 22-2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Paul Schonewolf:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
NIGRO COMPANIES, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved: NONE
4
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 19th day of, April, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are there any conditions that we need to talk about? There were
some outstanding engineering conditions. I believe the applicant has addressed them all, but it
would be nice to have the signoff.
MS. BITTER-1 don't have a problem with that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith had commented on a couple of items. I think we got clarification on
that as well, the landscaping and the fencing.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don't know, you may want to put a condition of approval that the fence
gets repaired, but, I don't know, Jamie's pretty good on the site.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, they already said they would do it.
MR. OBORNE-You are on the record.
MR. HUNSINGER-On the record. It will be forever immortalized on the Internet.
JAMIE MARGELOT
MR. MARGELOT-As long as it's in this way.
MR. HUNSINGER-And then there were variance requests as well, waivers, I'm sorry. Thank
you. I knew what I meant to say, there were waiver requests. Does anyone have any problem
with the waivers that are requested?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. They're actually in the draft resolution.
MR. KREBS-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And of course you weren't here Tuesday night, Stefanie, but it was, we were
told that it wasn't the bright red. It's the maroonish brown that is the right color.
MS. BITTER-Right, the one that was in the picture. That's correct.
MR. OBORNE-Minus the basketballs.
MS. BITTER-Right. No balls.
MR. OBORNE-No balls on the wall.
MR. KREBS-Okay. Are we ready for a motion?
MR. HUNSINGER-We're ready.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #22-2012 NIGRO COMPANIES
Tax Map ID 302.6-1-22 through 26
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant is proposing to retrofit approximately 8,000 square feet of vacant retail space and
install a 600 sq. ft. covered patio in the Price Rite Plaza for a Recovery Sports Grill. Revisions
to an approved site plan and change of use in the Commercial Intensive zone requires Planning
Board review and approval;
The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 4/17/2012; the ZBA approved the variance
requests on 4/18/2012;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/19/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2012 NIGRO COMPANIES, Introduced by Donald
Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-
080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code; and
2) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
4) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
5) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans;
6) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator;
7) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit
will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning
Office.
Duly adopted this 19th day of April 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
MR. MARGELOT-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2012 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED JOYCE
SHOVAH AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING
MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OFF JOHN CLENDON ROAD
SUBDIVISION: APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.05 ACRE PARCEL INTO
TWO LOTS OF 1.68 AND 1.72 ACRES WITH REMAINING 0.65 ACRES TO BE MERGED
WITH LANDS TO THE WEST OWNED BY THE APPLICANT. SUBDIVISION OF LAND
REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. AREA VARIANCES: RELIEF
REQUEST FROM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, AND ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE ZONING CODE. PLANNING BOARD MAY COMMENCE SEAR AND PROVIDE A
6
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA. CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-12, ADMINISTRATIVE
SUBDIVISION 6-1994 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 4.05 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 295.14-2-36 SECTION CHAPTER A-183
MATT STEVES & BILL NIKAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, currently you have the updated survey coming down to you for the Shovah
project. There was some negotiation last night at the Zoning Board of Appeals that made the
project a little bit more compliant, and with that I will go into the notes. Subdivision 2-2012. This
is Preliminary subdivision. John Clendon Road is the location. Moderate Density Residential is
the existing zoning. SEQRA status is Unlisted. We have not completed SEQRA on this
subdivision yes. Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.05 acre parcel into
two lots of what is now 1.81 and 2.08 acres with remaining acreage to be merged with lands to
the west owned by the applicant. Staff comments: The applicant has requested waivers from
grading, stormwater, E&S, and topography. I don't think there's a lot of moving parts to this. I
believe that the Planning Board is aware of what's going on. If you've visited the site, you'll
know that there is a road, a rough road going in, and with that I'll have the applicant explain to
you what happened last night in greater detail, and I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Joyce Shovah.
MR. NIKAS-Bill Nikas on behalf of Ms. Shovah.
MR. STEVES-Briefly on the Zoning Board from the recommendation from way back on Tuesday
night at the Planning Board, we went to the Zoning Board last night. They wanted us to try to
minimize the variances, and so they asked us if we could increase Lot One to two acres by
reducing the .65 acres that we were transferring to the other parcel that Miss Shovah owns. So
in doing that we took the lot line between Lot One and Two, moved it westerly 20 feet, increased
Lot Two from 1.72 acres to 1.81 acres and moved the westerly line of Lot One west to increase
that from 1.68 to two acres, thus reducing the strip that was I believe around 160 feet, 115.5 feet
that was going to be transferred to the other parcel down to 44.75 feet, and then because of that
change and the negotiation of that change we had a unanimous approval last night. So it's back
in front of you. Don't rub too hard. It's probably still wet, but made the changes so the Board
can see exactly what the Zoning Board was requiring of the applicant last night. Other than that,
no other changes, and no other comments at this time.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from members of the Board.
Obviously that change is acceptable with your client.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And you said a new plan was filed, a plan that shows the changes the Zoning
Board made?
MR. STEVES-Yes. I just handed them out tonight.
MR. OBORNE-Those are the ones that we just handed out to you, the ones that show a
compliant Lot One and a Lot Two at 1.81 acres.
MR. STEVES-Did you not get one, Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-1 did not get one.
MR. OBORNE-Could you pass them down, please. So this may clarify what's going on now.
MR. SIPP-Will the pending lawsuit have any effect on this at all?
MR. NIKAS-The Board wanted us to make the final signing contingent upon resolution of that,
and based upon the fact of hopefully approval that will trigger a resolution of that litigation, but
that is a contingency.
MR. SIPP-Now, are there any plans to continue the road, or just have the driveways?
MR. STEVES-Just the driveway.
7
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. OBORNE-If I could add to that, I do have a letter from counsel of, I guess it would be, it
wouldn't be the plaintiff. It would be the defendant or whatever.
MR. NIKAS-Defendant, correct.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it would be the defendant, which I'll read into the record when the public
hearing's open.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, the change that you made last night is fairly insignificant,
other than limiting the variance needs of the project.
MR. STEVES-Just tried to make them equalized but yet still maintain that buffer to the west.
That wasn't crucial, in our opinion, moving it to two acres or leaving it at the 1.68, won't
deliberate too much on that, but it really doesn't make any difference. We still wanted that
buffer. We still have the buffer. So it just reduced one lot, as far as the Area Variance.
MR. HUNSINGER-There doesn't appear to be any change in the clearing limits.
MR. STEVES-None whatsoever.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there's no other questions or comments from members of the
Board, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the
Board on this project? I know there were some comments Tuesday evening.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess it would be a good time to read into the record your letter.
MR. OBORNE-April 18, 2012. This is specifically to Steve Jackoski, Chairman, Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. "Our firm is counsel to Laurie Dickinson, a neighbor to
the Shovah property. As I noted before the Planning Board, and as I note now for the record in
writing, our client owns property that abuts the right of way/driveway proposed to be used by Ms.
Shovah with regard to her proposed subdivision. There is currently pending litigation between
Ms. Shovah, as the plaintiff, and my client, as the defendant, with regard to the use of that right
of way, and in particular, improvements that my client and her predecessors have constructed in
that area. Though my client does not object to the creation of two lots, as those lots were in fact
previously created by subdivision by the map not filed, my client does believe, and I concur, that
the litigation must be resolved before a mylar should be signed by the Town. As such, though
we see no need to delay the municipal approvals, we do ask that the signing of the mylar be
conditioned on the filing of a stipulation of settlement or a final court determination with regard to
the pending litigation. Bill Scott from my office and I are working with Mr. Nikas to resolve those
issues and I am confident that we will be able to do so. Thank you. Sincerely, Matthew F.
Fuller" And that's all I've got.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, if there are no other comments, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted action. Subdivision requires a Long Form. A Long Form
has been submitted. Mr. Krebs, whenever you're ready. Unless there's other questions or
comments from the Board.
MR. KREBS-Impact on Land. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project
site?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, typically we say yes, but it's small to moderate.
MR. KREBS-Construction on land where the depth to water table is less than three feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-Construction of paved parking areas for 1,000 or more vehicles. No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, they don't meet any of those threshold examples, but, I mean,
they are changing the land by building two houses.
MR. KREBS-Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within three feet of
existing ground surface. No. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve
more than one phase or stage. No.
8
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural
material (i.e., rock or soil) per year.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-No. Construction in a designated floodway.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length),
or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered
species?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
9
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or
paleontological importance?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open
spaces or recreational opportunities?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. MAGOWAN-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a
critical environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. SIPP-No.
MR. KREBS-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Then I'll make a motion to declare a Negative declaration.
10
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 2-2012, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Thomas Ford:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
JOYCE SHOVAH, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved: NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds
that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant
environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a
negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 19th day of, April, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-So the only thing we're looking to do this evening is Preliminary.
MR. OBORNE-That is correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So the conditions that have been discussed would be held until Final.
MR. OBORNE-That would be correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So would anyone like to make a motion for Preliminary approval, and that
would just be in accordance with the sample resolution.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STAGE SUB #2-2012 JOYCE SHOVAH
Tax Map ID 295.14-2-36
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.05 acre parcel into two lots of 1.68 and 1.72 acres with
remaining 0.65 acres to be merged with lands to the west owned by the applicant. Subdivision
of land requires Planning Board review and approval;
The PB made a recommendation to the ZBA on 4/17/2012; the ZBA approved the variance
request on 4/18/2012;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/17/2012 & 4/19/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2012 JOYCE SHOVAH,
Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb:
11
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter A-183], the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
b) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and
the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration;
c) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, erosion control, topography;
Duly adopted this 19th day of April 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. NIKAS-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. We'll see you soon.
MR. OBORNE-If I could state for the record, when Final does come around, there will be, upon
that condition with the mylars, I'll also be looking for a condition that the Appendix E of the
Erosion and Sediment Control manual be utilized for any construction on the parcels.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-Just to let you know for the record.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 MODIFICATION; SITE PLAN NO. 25-2012; FRESHWATER
WETLANDS 2-2012 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP
OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
LOCATION 504 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN
APPROVED SUBDIVISION TO INCLUDE AS-BUILT HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY LOCATION AS
WELL AS AFTER THE FACT LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. MODIFICATION TO AN
APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. SITE
PLAN REVIEW & FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR LAND
CLEARING/DISTURBANCE IN EXCESS OF ONE ACRE AS WELL A DISTURBANCE WITHIN
100 FEET OF A REGULATED WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE ORIGINAL &
MODIFICATION (HOWARD); BP 09-440 APA, CEA, OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE
4.89 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.06-2-17 SECTION CHAPTER A-183; 179-9; CHAPTER 94
STEFANIE BITTER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. OBORNE-Hayes Construction Group is the applicant. Subdivision. This is a modification to
an approved subdivision and it does require Planning Board approval. Site Plan, Freshwater
Wetlands, land clearing/disturbance in excess of one acre, and disturbance within 100 feet of
regulated wetland. Location 504 Luzerne Road. This is in the MDR zoning district. SEQRA
status would be Unlisted or you could reaffirm the previous SEQRA, but that's totally up to the
Board, obviously. Project Description: Applicant proposes modification to an approved
subdivision to include as-built house and driveway location as well as after the fact limits of
disturbance. Comments: The applicant is seeking subdivision modification as a result of the
recently erected house being sited in a location other that what was approved. Clearing limits
have been exceeded and are within the no-cut zone and disturbance within 100 feet of a
delineated wetland has occurred. The Planning Board is being asked to approve, after the fact,
both the existing location of the Single Family Dwelling as well as the disturbance associated
with the construction of the home and disturbance within the 100 foot adjacent zone to a
wetland. Additional Comments: Total disturbance according to the applicant is 17,600. It is
Staff's opinion that this appears to be an underestimation upon review of the submitted survey
map and should be quantified to include total property clearing as well as the home site. The
site has yet to be stabilized and it should be ascertained when soil stabilization will occur. I
think, with that comment, the applicant is waiting for it to rain for the seed to take root.
Obviously the SWPPP associated with initial subdivision has been submitted, and initial
approved location of house was submitted with your notes. The applicant has requested
waivers from grading, stormwater, E& S and topography because it's all in place right now. So
with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
12
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter here with Mickie Hayes and Tom Center. I think
what we need to do is we really need to just start with clarifying the discussion that occurred
when the original subdivision was approved. There were certain clearing limits that were
described and discussed with regard to two lots that are identified as Lot 17 and I believe Lot 18,
and that was necessarily the focus of where they were trying to protect the wetlands that existed
along there. As many of you know from this map, there's also a drainage easement that crosses
through this lot as well that does have an impact relative to those clearing limits and those are
taken into consideration. Tom Center is going to go through what those limitations were with the
original approval.
MR. CENTER-Tom Center, Nace Engineering. When we first submitted for Preliminary, when
this came out of Sketch Plan, working with Van Dusen and Steves, our direction was to place
the dotted dashed line there that shows the 50 foot wetland setback for disturbance. Then the
second dotted dashed line was a 75 foot wetland setback for the buildings and the third was the
100 foot wetland setback for septic systems, and then as the process went through Preliminary,
for these two lots, when we move to Final, the no cut limit was moved up to the 100 foot wetland
setback for the septic on Lot 18, and it was moved to the 75 foot wetland setback for the building
on Lot 17 so that if the owner wanted to access the upper left hand corner of his parcel that he
would have that available to him, and then the clearing limits that are shown on this drawing
right here in front of you in green, those are the clearing limits as described in the initial survey
with 2004 clearing limits shown as per aerial photography. So those clearing limits right there
are what the land was existing, prior to the subdivision being constructed, and then what we've
shown in the red areas is areas that have been cut by the applicant that are within that 70 foot,
75 foot wetland setback which are these three areas shown in red right here, and then the area
shown in purple is disturbance within an already cleared area. It's land grading that's within this,
between the 75 foot and the 50 foot, but all it is is land grading. It wasn't cleared. It wasn't cut.
It was already open area prior to, as you can see where the limits of the 2004 woods are, and
that, and the initial house locations, like any large lot, is something that are shown that a house
can fit on the lot. A house is located there. We show some clearing limits around it, but it's not a
final. It's a best guess, if you will, that we show on any lot, that a house can fit, that we can get a
septic. It's not a, and these lots weren't a final only location for any of the houses for the entire
subdivision. So that's a little bit of background, if it makes it any clearer. I can answer any
questions in regard to that if you have them.
MS. BITTER-The house as it exists today is in a compliant (lost words) for the setback as well
as the septic system as to where it was placed.
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MR. FORD-It is compliant you say?
MS. BITTER-Yes, setback wise for the MDR zoning district.
MR. CENTER-It meets the setback requirements within the subdivision. There was nothing that
said that nothing could be built outside of the areas that were hatched or shaded and denoted.
MR. OBORNE-Can I respond to that? I mean, you have a subdivision with approved clearing
limits. That's the area that was proposed for the house to be, and I don't want the Board to be
confused between what was cleared and what disturbance is. Disturbance is disturbance, and if
it's over an acre, it's disturbance, and you're required to have SPDES.
MR. CENTER-That's correct, and the project did have a SPDES. The SPDES was in place from
the beginning, even though parcels were sold, subdivision was sold. The SPDES, the Notice of
Intent, under Hayes Construction, was always in place throughout the entire project. So
whether it was a half-acre, as long as it was less than five acres, between one and five acres,
that Notice of Intent was in place for any disturbance done on that lot.
MR. OBORNE-And I concur with that. I mean, absolutely. Tom has placed the SWPPP on the
subdivision or on this update here also. So I mean, it's compliant in that regard also.
MR. CENTER-1 guess the question would be is when we go, and I've talked with Mr. Steves
about this also. When we go through subdivision and we show clearing limits, they're not
necessarily a final clearing limit in any subdivision unless that's a strict, clear condition that's
placed during the subdivision process. I know when we did the project up on, the subdivision up
on 149 where we had large lots, and this was a discussion about clearing limits, those lots
required to come back for Site Plan Review, and that was a condition of approval. Whereas in
this case, for this subdivision, that wasn't a condition of approval that, you know, as long as they
13
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
met the setback requirements, as long as the setbacks and the no cut, the special conditions
that we did place on the drawing were followed, the house could go anywhere on that lot as long
as it met those conditions. Those were the conditions, and we're not, you know, disputing the
fact that there was an error made and areas were cut within that 75 foot no cut area. Those are
the areas where it was cut.
MR. FORD-How much of the no cut zone did you actually impact, are you admitting to?
MR. CENTER-These three areas right here, which is about, I believe around 3,000 square feet.
MS. BITTER-But understand that this is the Town of Queensbury drainage (lost word). So
obviously it's not that entire (lost words) area.
MR. SIPP-Approximately how many trees would that be? Has anybody got an idea?
MR. CENTER-1 don't know. There were pine trees. There was scrub brush. Things were, it
wasn't, you know, thick dense woods. There were areas that were, you know, that had some
brush piles that were back there in some areas also where the previous owner had done some
work. I can't tell you and quantify exactly how many trees were in that section.
MR. FORD-And as a part of this project, was clearing done right to the edge of the wetland?
MR. CENTER-To the edge of the wetland?
MR. FORD-Yes.
MR. CENTER-No. The wetland is back 50 feet. You can see the wetland is down in here. So
these are the clearing limits, the cleared area for the aerial photography before anything was
done for the subdivision at all.
MR. FORD-And it was cleared right to the edge of the?
MR. CENTER-This, yes. That was, that hasn't changed since we submitted for Sketch Plan and
Preliminary in 2004, 2007. That was the existing conditions before any construction work or
anything was done. You go back through the file, I've been back through the file on those.
There was a cleared area. The aerial photography also shows the same.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's where we thought the area of contention was.
MR. CENTER-No.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, when we went to the site on Saturday.
MR. FORD-When we look at a cleared area and there's a tree that is a part of that cleared area
that has been pushed over into the wetland, and it has an orange surveyor's tape on it, that
shows that you're in pretty close clearing, beyond the clearing limit to that wetland.
MR. CENTER-1 can't attest to that. I didn't see what you were looking at. The clearing limits as
they existed from the 2004 survey from Van Dusen and Steves, which shows, you know, from
the aerial photography that that area was previously cleared.
MR. SIPP-But you created disturbance in that area.
MR. CENTER-There was disturbance created between the 50 and the 75 foot where land
grading did occur. This area was already cleared, but there was land disturbance within the 50
to the 75. So it was graded, yes, but there wasn't trees. It was.
MR. SIPP-But it wasn't supposed to be disturbed.
MR. CENTER-It was not to be cut. It was a no cut.
MR. SIPP-What about disturbance here?
MR. CENTER-The no disturbance line was set at 50 feet.
MR. SIPP-Were you within?
MR. CENTER-They did not disturb beyond that 50 foot.
14
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. SIPP-Now on the southwest side of the driveway coming in, you've got a depression there
which I assume is to take care of stormwater?
MR. CENTER-Down in here?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MR. CENTER-Down in here is the easement for the Town of Queensbury has the stormwater
drainage, French drain that comes over from Michaels Drive, that comes from all the way over
here at Michaels Drive, and comes down through.
MR. SIPP-1 saw that, but what is that pocket designed to do?
MR. CENTER-It could be just a low spot in there during construction. Believe me, there's not a
lot of runoff over on these sites. All the perc rates were a minute or less in some areas.
MR. SIPP-Is that the idea is that when it rains you'll have a road in there?
MR. CENTER-There is a driveway. There is a crushed stone driveway.
MR. SIPP-The crushed stone is mixed with what, is it mixed with anything?
MR. CENTER-No.
MR. SIPP-Just straight stone?
MR. CENTER-Probably crushed stone and dust, crushed stone and 1A and dust. Typical
crushed stone driveway.
MR. SIPP-Well, you know, I think there is a little excess clearing here and I'd like to see those
trees replaced.
MR. OBORNE-See them replaced in the no cut zone?
MR. SIPP-Yes.
MS. BITTER-In the red areas.
MR. CENTER-And that would be in the three red areas, which would be to the east of the
driveway, in those areas.
MR. SIPP-Yes. They're predominantly white pine in that area, although there are some.
MR. CENTER-We could put the trees in everywhere except where the easement is for that
stormwater line. That needs to remain open. That's their access point for that. There's some
additional manholes as they go back through that.
MR. FORD-What is your closest measurement of that house to the wetland area?
MR. CENTER-One hundred feet.
MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments from the Board? I just wanted to say, and, you know, I
tended to agree with the comments that you were making earlier on about how, you know, how
the error occurred, and I think we've all been kind of caught up into this. There's been enough
times when clearing limits have been exceeded. So now we're pretty careful when approve a
subdivision to make note that, you know, the limits that are depicted on the site plan are
intended to be, you know, the actual depiction of the clearing limits, unless otherwise specified,
and, you know, I can kind of see how this happened. Kind of the irony about this particular case
is when we went out for site visits on Saturday we drove into the next door neighbor's property,
Howards, and he was here just a few months ago for the same reason, and it was only after we
were in there for a minute or two that we realized we were on the wrong site, and I was like, wait
a minute, this looks awfully familiar, and we kind of figured it out, it was the wrong site.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Those limits were a bit more than this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, quite a bit more, actually. So I don't know, it was kind of ironic that it
was right next door, but, you know, again, when we were there, we thought the issue was more I
that, well, it's really kind of the northern most corner of the clearing, and that isn't even where
the limit was exceeded. Putting some additional white pines in where, in those red hatches 1
15
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
think would be a very easy thing to do, and that's an easy way to satisfy everybody. I think
maybe that would be an easy way out, and I don't know if there's any other questions,
comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the
audience that wants to address the Board on this project? We do have one comment. The
purpose of the public hearing is for members of the public to make comments on a project. We
do record the meeting and then the recording is used to transcribe the minutes. So I would ask
anyone who addresses the Board to speak clearly into the microphone. We do ask that you
state your name for the record and address any comments or questions to the Board. If you
want to come up, sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LEROY LA CROSS
MR. LA CROSS-I'm not much for speaking, but I live at 485 Luzerne Road. My name's Leroy
LaCross. I built my home in '89. It seems there's been an awful lot of oversight of them clearing
across the road there and cutting trees down and no one's watched out what they do. There's
still buried roots over there on Howards. I know what Hayes has done there on his property. I
used to ride my four-wheeler through there. There's natural drainage. There's no more natural
drainage there anymore. My basement flooded three year ago, and a lot of homes on Luzerne
Road. We didn't get compensated for that. I lost everything in my basement, and I built there
and I never had any problem for 18 years in that basement until they started cutting all those
trees over there. Someone said that's okay to cut the trees, it doesn't matter. Well, that's what
sucks up the water, and, you know, they went ahead and did all this without even, you know,
took it on their own behalf. Howard cut all those trees down, probably paid for, and got all the
topsoil, probably enough to build his house over there, and then, I mean, everybody gets away
with what they want. Just go ahead and cut it down. I mean, our people are supposed to be
watching over it, doesn't come and check on them what they're doing. I could ride out there
right now and show you spots where they've got stuff buried in the ground because I still
checked it out, what's going on. I see it every day. I'm retired, and so I know what's going on,
those trucks going in and out, what's been happening, and I know something else that I've been
fighting for years, that's been bothering me an awful lot with Mr. Hayes got approved by the
Board for his parking in front of Cool Beans for four vehicles. Do you know how those vehicles
park? They park like this coming in. Transportation, or the Highway Department would never
allow that, and no one ever wants to enforce that. Who's property is it on? Their property only
comes out nine foot nine to the City line on Western Avenue. No one wants to enforce that. I've
been fighting this for years, wouldn't talk to the Mayor of Glens Falls come up here and talk in
Queensbury, talk to the Police Department. Even the cops park wrong in front of there. So
that's about all I've got to say. I just wanted to come up and see what was going on here
tonight, what they were going to do about this across the street now.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. LA CROSS-All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else?
KEITH HENDRY
MR. HENDRY-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. HENDRY-I'm Keith Hendry. I live over on Stephanie, just down the road from there, and I
am a Queensbury native, born and raised, and watched all this stuff grow. I don't believe Mr.
Hayes was significantly evasive by cutting the trees down over there. The Town went through
and put drainage in, had to. Michaels was flooded. What did they do to perpetrate a drain line
down through there? They cut trees. They dug. They excavated. They put in structures. They
graded the ground back and they re-planted the grass. Mr. Hayes went in there and started a
development, and then actually like some of the other developments in Town, put significantly
large lots in. So it's not going to be over populated. He didn't cut down a significant amount of
trees. If you take a walk through there and look at the density of the forest and you imagine
what he did to open it up to make it marketable as he did, the density, the forest wouldn't show
that he cut a lot of trees down. He cut some, granted, and I think he did take a few that probably
were within that wetland zone, but as far as being excessive, I don't believe he did. I think
there's other place in the Town of Queensbury they've done a lot worse than that. Insofar as
disrupting the water table there, I don't think that happened, either. If there was any disruption it
was from the storm drain that came over from Michaels, which would give natural flow for the
surface water down through that area. So maybe the people on Luzerne did experience water in
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
their basements where they didn't have before because now there's a route through. My
experience with all this is just from being in the construction industry, seeing developments,
having done major projects, dam projects, bridge projects, big developments, and seeing the
disruption, and the careful way we treat the wetlands which we really have to, the silt fence,
keeping the ground intact, etc., etc. I don't believe that this is a significant problem at this Town
or for the Planning Board. All right. I think if he's done anything he's opened an area that looks
aesthetically much better than it did. How do you feel about it, Mr. Hunsinger?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we'll find out.
MR. HENDRY-And you're a native from Queensbury, correct?
MR. HUNSINGER-No.
MR. HENDRY-You're not?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, but we're here for this project and to hear your comments on this project.
MR. HENDRY-Okay. Very good. I just wanted to be sure that you knew my thoughts on it and
that the significance is minimal. All right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Appreciate it. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir.
COLBY LA BELLE
MR. LA BELLE-Good evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MR. LA BELLE-I'm Colby LaBelle, 462 Luzerne Road, 456 Luzerne Road. The gentleman that
lives on Stefanie Lane apparently is too far from the water. I've had issues with water in my
cellar, flooded, lost everything I owned in that cellar. Had to spend almost $10,000 for drainage
around my house and a sump pump. He has cut a lot of trees there and there is a drainage
problem, and it flows downhill right towards my property, and it started on the ball thing, filling it
in, then Hayes played with it, and now you've got Howard playing in it. Thirty years my parents
lived there, never had any water. I built a brand new house there in '05. I've had water, small
water issues. Now I've got, had huge water, 16,000 gallons of water two years ago pumped out
of my basement. That water runs, of course, downhill, you know what I mean? The drainage
that was put in from Michaels Drive was a great thing. I was told they were going to do a
parallel, but they didn't. They did it this way. They didn't go too deep, you know what I mean,
because it is a wetlands, too, and the drainage over on Cerrone's property, over off Sherman
Avenue, that one drainage culvert that's a foot and a half above the ground that sort of helps. At
least the water doesn't run down those roads anymore, but the whole theory was is Michaels
Drive and Hayes played and then the Cerrone guy built his road up five foot high so the water
couldn't go to the pole lines anymore. So that creates a big pond. You get two days of good
rain, two days of good rain, I've got pictures of it, that whole wood area will flood up with water
all the way to Sherman Avenue, right behind the houses, including my house, too, my backyard
looks like a river back there. You do have a problem back there. I mean, I understand these
guys are trying to build houses in swamps, because that's all that's left and they can buy the
land cheap and they've got more money than me, but I'm telling you there is problems there with
water. I've got pictures to prove it. I've lived there a long time, and now I've the Howard guy
there and I made a mistake, I didn't know, but they've got all this money, got all this equipment
and they don't know where to cut the trees and stuff? I'm not that smart and I think I could figure
out what's blue, what's orange, you know, where the sign is. Now you've got Howard made the
same mistake that this man's made. I think they should pay for the mistakes. I make a mistake,
I've got to pay for it. I pay a fine, you know what I mean, I go to jail. Something should happen
here. I mean, they just keep digging, and digging and burying and burying and moving and
moving, and it's a wetlands. There's animals back there. I won't even get into, somebody's
shooting stuff out there, too, but I won't even get into that stuff, but there's a lot of stuff going on
there. I think there is a problem, and I'm happy you guys did do the drainage that you did do
from Michaels Drive out through Luzerne Road, and it goes across the road and goes right to
the Hudson River, you know what I mean. That pond that Howard's got out there right now, it's
two foot deep, it's still full of water, and of course he's got stumps in there now and stuff, but
there's water there. It's close, you know what I mean. My theory is I'm lower than they are. I
don't want their water on my property because that's a lawsuit, you know what I mean, it's
against the law to do that, and so far it's been moved from Michaels Drive down a couple of
acres, you know, closer to my house, and it's happening.
MR. HUNSINGER-We didn't see a pond on Howard's property when we were there Saturday.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. LA BELLE-You didn't go far enough out back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LA BELLE-You know where that big pile of topsoil is out there that he's taking sand and
topsoil and he's selling it? If you go just around that, he's got a big pile of dirt so you can't see it.
You go around that pile of dirt, there you are.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. LA BELLE-Do you want pictures of it? I've got them on my cellphone. Do you want to see
it?
MR. HUNSINGER-No, that's okay.
MR. LA BELLE-Got them on my cellphone. I've got stumps in the ground. You can see water
six inches under the ground there's water, where the stumps are, you know what I mean. I
mean, if you go in there far enough you'll see that what I'm talking about.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. LA BELLE-That's all I have for you. I just hope you guys have got your eyes open. Thank
you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. Anyone else? No other members of the audience
have comments? Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-I don't believe so. No.
MR. KREBS-When I was out there today, I made the mistake of going on Howard's property,
too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you?
MR. KREBS-And I ran into Dave Howard, and he said that they are going to fill those, that area
that he's talking about that has water in it now. It will be filled.
MR. OBORNE-It's a condition of approval.
MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Everyone's quiet.
MR. MAGOWAN-I guess one of the questions, you know, are you aware of any of the stumps
being buried out there?
MICKIE HAYES
MR. HAYES-I don't know what Dave has done over, you know, on his property, since, I sold
Dave the property I believe a year and a half ago. I'm not sure what he's done. I know there's
been major excavation on that side, and I want to make sure that our property isn't pulled into
that. That's been quite a project over there. I want to make sure that there's no confusion
between the two. We did make some mistakes and we missed some things by some footage
here. It was a horse farm before. There were trails through there. There's debris. You can see
there was a lot of barns, old barns and stuff like that, but I also want (lost words) we're the ones
that granted the easement for Michaels Drive to be drained, and I guess it has been successful,
as far as I know, it's brought the groundwater table down for Michaels Drive. I hope it is, that's
why they did it, but basically the long and the short of it is the person who was going to buy the
house, couldn't get the financing for the house, chose this meadow up here that was cleared
and they wanted their house because it was sunnier than back down in the lower portion of it
and that's why the house is where it is, and of course when we did it we did miss, the
measurements were incorrect. That's what happened there, but a lot of it was there was no
trees to cut down. Believe me the type of trees that are there, beyond just the pure economics
of it, a lot of the scrub pines and stuff like that and those pine trees, they're not worth any
money. They cost you to get rid of them. There's no gain to cut down trees. In other trees there
is when you have a hardwood or nice forest and obviously people push the limits to gain that
thousand dollar tree or something, but that's not the case in an area like this which I see you
guys saw when you went walking in there. It's not, the timber, it's not that style.
MR. DEEB-You're okay with replacing the trees?
18
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. HAYES-Yes. I don't think we took down very many trees. I'd like it not to be, but I think the
white pines is kind of the natural, it's what most of it is there. There are some poplar trees, you
know, more like softwoods, but it's mainly pine forest, really.
MR. FORD-You wouldn't object to putting some of those in, some white pine in?
MR. HAYES-Yes, that's what is natural, because it's really sandy there as well. So, yes, that
would be fine.
MR. OBORNE-If the Board's going to make that a condition, be specific. You need to have
Code Compliance out there.
MR. MAGOWAN-Number, spacing.
MR. OBORNE-Location.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, either a number or an area.
MR. OBORNE-Species.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I think, I mean, the map.
MS. BITTER-We've denoted on the plan as being the red area, obviously, like I mentioned,
excluding the drainage easement area.
MR. HAYES-I'd have to say probably like 15 trees. So that it would be, and separate them so
they'll grow up, because it's going to be more sunlight there than there was before. They will
grow fast, but, I mean, you're kind of just being part of the, there's a forest that backs up to the
forest, and we wouldn't plant them on the easement. I don't think they want anything planted on
their easement for the.
MR. OBORNE-Mickie, what size would you offer?
MR. HAYES-I don't know, what would be typical, five or six foot?
MR. OBORNE-Five foot would be fine.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-If that works for the Board.
MR. FORD-Fifteen, five to six foot.
MR. HAYES-Yes.
MR. FORD-Don, would you agree with that?
MR. HUNSINGER-Fifteen total trees.
MR. OBORNE-Maybe equally dispersed in the areas disturbed. Not that I'm writing your
resolution or anything.
MR. FORD-Planning to occur in the red area, excluding the easement area.
MR. HAYES-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-How do we treat SEQRA here? It's an Unlisted action. They submitted a
Short Form. It was part of a Long Form originally.
MR. OBORNE-Right, which still stands. So, I mean, you look at this project, not in the greater,
but in what the lesser, or what we're here for specifically, in the micro, I guess, but I think a
reaffirmation would cover it, but if you want to go through the Short Form, that's fine, too.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are there any SEQRA issues that members of the Board feel we need
to address? Okay. Then we'll just reaffirm SEQRA.
MR. FORD-Reaffirm.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-In the resolution.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Are you clear on the condition, Don?
MR. KREBS-Yes. The condition I have is that 15, five to six foot white pines will be planted in
the area where the vegetation was removed from the no cut area. Is that clear enough?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MS. BITTER-Is there any way we can reference this map, just so that there's no confusion as to
the areas that we're talking about being cleared?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, you could revise the, again, I'm not doing the resolution here, revise the
resolution to denote that as discussed at the meeting, and using the map.
MR. HUNSINGER-You'll have to submit that map, though.
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Perfect.
MR. FORD-Designated within that red area on that map, and excluding the drainage area. We
don't want them planting in there.
MR. KREBS-Okay. How does this sound? I'm just going to do this.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead.
MR. KREBS-Hayes will plant 15 five to six foot white pines in the area where the vegetation was
removed from the no cut area. As discussed, this area will be the red area on the drawings
submitted.
MR. HUNSINGER-That's pretty clear.
MR. OBORNE-That's fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. FORD-Do you want to use map instead of drawing? Does that map have a number on it,
some way we can designate?
MR. HUNSINGER-Dated today?
MR. CENTER-It's S-1, but it's one that I just kind of made up tonight for clarification. It's the
same drawing that was submitted to you folks in the package, except I highlighted this one to
make it clear. I just did that this evening.
MR. HUNSINGER-But you're handing it to Keith, so it's part of the record.
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-So we're not done here. I mean, we haven't done a resolution or anything.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, we haven't done the resolution.
MR. OBORNE-Just to make sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Mr. Krebs is about ready to reel it off.
MR. OBORNE-Excellent. So have we reaffirmed SEQRA by a vote?
MR. HUNSINGER-It's going to be in the resolution.
MR. OBORNE-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
20
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. OBORNE-1 would ask that the public hearing is closed also.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did we close the public hearing? I thought we did? No? Okay. We'll close
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUB # 14-2005 MOD.; SP #25-2012; FWW 2-2012 HAYES
A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes modification to an approved subdivision to include as-built house and
driveway location as well as after the fact limits of disturbance. Modification to an approved
subdivision requires Planning Board review and approval. Site Plan review & Freshwater
Wetlands permits are required for land clearing/disturbance in excess of one acre as well as
disturbance within 100 feet of a regulated wetland;
A public hearing was scheduled and held on 4/19/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005; SITE PLAN 25-2012;
AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS NO. 2-2012 HAYES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, Introduced
by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford:
504 Luzerne Road.
a) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Code [Chapter A-183, Chapter
179, Chapter 94], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the
requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
b) The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and
will reaffirm State Environmental Quality Review Act as a Negative;
c) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator
or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and
prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent
issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this
and all other conditions of this resolution;
d) Waiver requests granted stormwater mgmt., grading, E & S, and topography;
e) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall
be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff;
fl The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
1. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site
work.
2. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and
g) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
1. The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These
plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when
such a plan was prepared and approved; and
2. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
h) Approved with the condition that 15, five to six foot white pines will be planted in the area
where the vegetation was removed from the no cut zone, and as discussed, this area will be
defined by the red area in the maps or the drawings submitted to the Town Board.
Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
21
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 18-2012 SEAR TYPE II LAURA FEATHERS AGENT(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT OWNER(S) GORDON DEVELOPMENT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL
INTENSIVE LOCATION 1500 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A TENT SALE
FROM AUGUST 1, 2012 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2012. TENT SALES LONGER THAN 12
DAYS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP
29-11; SP 13-10, SP 12-09, SP 11-08, SP 26-07, SP 7-05, SP 22-04 WARREN CO.
REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 1.61 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15 SECTION 179-9-010
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Laura Feathers. Tent sales longer than 12 days require Planning Board
review and approval. Location is 1500 State Route 9. Commercial Intensive is the zoning. This
is a Type 11 SEQRA. No further action is required. I believe the Planning Board's aware of what
this entails. Every year she comes back seeking Site Plan Review for this, the tent sale, Family
Footwear, 149 and Route 9. What follows is basically Staff comments. They're taking up three
spaces. The Fire Marshal is contacted prior every year for an inspection, and what we're trying
to do this year, and we're putting forth, you know, trying to be proactive, instead of having her
come back every year, we're looking for maybe a two year or even further down the road
approval, with the knowledge that she'll have to come back at some other time, but not every
year, and that's something that Staff would like the Planning Board to consider.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. OBORNE-With that, I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here representing the applicant?
MR. OBORNE-Is Laura Feathers here? She's not here?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. FORD-Kind of preempted not having to come back.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Maybe we should make it a three year, and by that time the Town might
have a permit process, we wouldn't have to go through this, like every other town.
MR. OBORNE-1 don't know if you want to approve in absentia, but.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If we're going to do one in absentia, this is the one.
MR. SIPP-She's got time. It's August 1St
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there's no requirement that the applicant be present in order for us to
take action on an application, but I don't know if there's questions, comments from the Board
that would remain outstanding that can't be answered with the applicant not here.
MR. KREBS-Well, this isn't the first time this has been before the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, it's every year.
MR. FORD-We approve it every year.
MR. HUNSINGER-You can see it goes back to 2004. She's been here every year since 2004.
It's the same plan. I do believe, at some point, there was a discussion about the length of days.
I think before 2004 it was a longer period of time than it's been the last several years. We
shortened the request from what was originally requested way back when.
MR. OBORNE-1 agree, and maybe during the approval for greater than one year it may not be
prudent at this point, being that she's not here.
MR. FORD-1 would agree.
MR. HUNSINGER-Although, if we approve it without her here, that kind of gives credence to the
fact that they don't need to come every year.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. OBORNE-Yes, and that's what you have to weigh. I mean, honestly I'm surprised she's not
here. She was noticed. She knows the drill.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-She should.
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, would it set a precedent that other people don't have to appear?
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don't think there's any precedent. Every project is reviewed on its
merits, you know, the circumstances and site specific issues of the project. I certainly don't think
it would be setting a precedent by approving something without anyone here. I mean, the other
thing we can do is wait, leave this until the end of the evening and see if perhaps someone
shows up.
MR. OBORNE-We can do that, or you can table and put her on for May. I mean, her
application's already in.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. KREBS-Yes. We just table it to May.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-She doesn't need it until August.
MR. FORD-Let's do it. Let's do that.
MR. KREBS-Table it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Before we table it, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone
in the audience that wants to address the Board on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have meetings on the 15th and 17th of May. So this will be three
months in a row where we have meetings on a Tuesday and Thursday.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. One was grievance, one was elections.
MR. HUNSINGER-1 don't know what the issue was in June. I can't remember.
MR. OBORNE-1 can't, either.
MR. HUNSINGER-Why don't we table this to the 17th of May.
MR. OBORNE-That's fine.
MR. HUNSINGER-And, Keith, could you contact the applicant and make sure that they know
they're going to be on?
MR. OBORNE-On the 17 th?
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely. Yes, we'll re-post it and everything.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and if there's a reason why they weren't here, if you could convey that
to the Board, that would be appreciated.
MR. OBORNE-Sure.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion to table this?
RESOLUTION TABLING SP # 18-2012 LAURA FEATHERS
Tax Map ID 288.12-1-15
23
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes a Tent Sale from August 1, 2012 through August 31, 2012. Tent Sales
longer than 12 days require Planning Board review and approval;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/19/2012;
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 18-2012 LAURA FEATHERS, Introduced by Paul
Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
Tabled to May 17tH
Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 2012, by the following vote:
YES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-And let the record show the public hearing was held open.
SITE PLAN NO. 23-2012 SEAR TYPE II CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC. AGENT(S)
BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING
CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 410 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
THE INSTALLATION OF A 220 SQUARE FOOT REFRIGERATION UNIT TO THE EXISTING
2,952 SQUARE FOOT CONVENIENCE STORE. FURTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO
INCLUDE NEW SIDEWALKS, SIGNAGE AND DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE AMONG OTHER
MINOR CHANGES. MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLANS IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 47-2001
WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 1.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 202.5-1-24
SECTION 179-9
STEFANIE BITTER & KEVIN HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Cumberland Farms, Inc. Modifications to approved site plans in a Cl zone
require Planning Board review and approval. 410 Quaker Road is the location. Commercial
Intensive is the zoning. This is a Type II SEQRA. Project Description: Applicant proposes the
installation of a 220 square foot refrigeration unit to the existing 2,952 square foot convenience
store. Further site improvements include new sidewalks, signage, relocated dumpster
enclosure, installation of a Redbox movie rental, and bottle redemption machine. There are
some, I guess, bookkeeping that should be done with the existing site plan, and those are listed.
As far as the proposed Site Plan, there is a Type C buffer along the south that is required for
179-8-070. I'm also looking, or I have some concern with the parking and drive aisle. There
should be some consideration to expanding it, and that is basically because I feel, or Staff feels
that the installation of the Redbox movie rental and the bottle redemption machine may
increase, potentially increase, site traffic on that parcel. Currently the machine is inside and
people, now it's going to be outside. So that may be a little bit of a difference. It is a little bit
tight in there. If you're aware of that Cumberland Farms, it does a pretty good clip of business,
and just want to bring that to the attention of the Planning Board. Again, the floor plan, some of
it doesn't match, but it's not anything that is earth shattering, but additional comments, the
existing site plan should have the utility details and easements, existing lighting and existing
landscaping and all the utilities, again, should be shown. Under my additional comments I do
expand on why I feel there should be some review into the maneuverability on the parcel, and
with that I'd turn it over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening.
MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter for the record, here with Kevin Huntington from
Emco Construction, as well as (lost words) from Cumberland Farms, Inc. in the audience. We're
here this evening. We're here this evening because Cumberland Farms is overall doing a re-
imaging throughout the region, which many of you probably have seen. I know the Queensbury
Route 9 store has already undergone this re-imaging. Bay Road was just re-imaged as well,
implementing a new logo and design as well as incorporating new merchandise. In order to
facilitate that, they're proposing to add this 220 square foot storage/freeze unit. Obviously that
would allow them to have more products on site, as well as decrease the number of deliveries
that would have to come to the site. We also requested 11 other items relative to site changes
that I'll go over quickly that are in your cover letter. One of them is to have the air tower to be
relocated to the building sidewalk, to implement a new sidewalk at the front of the store, a new
sidewalk on the side of the store to accommodate the storage unit, proposing a new building
24
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
sign which will be 26.2 square feet incorporating the new Cumberland Farms corporate logo,
and replacing the five square foot wall sign that's there today, and also having minor
modifications to accommodate the new sign, installing protective bollards at the front and side of
the store, obviously to protect the customers as well as the store from any damage, re-striping
the parking spaces. Our initial proposal was to actually add two additional parking spaces, but
I'll respond to Staff comments in a second, too, with additional proposal. We're re-locating the
dumpster and enclosure to accommodate the new storage unit, and enclosing it with a new
board on board enclosure, and speaking to corporate today, it actually was clarified that the area
in which we're re-locating the dumpster to, I'm sorry, the area which we're removing the
dumpster, we're replacing that with permeable area, with grass. So we're actually going to be
increasing the permeability and recapturing some permeable surface. We're modifying the
existing canopy to include the new green stripe logo, and what I incorrectly stated in my cover
letter was that we were adding a canopy sign, and that's actually not true. No canopy signs will
be on either side of the canopy. We're modifying the existing freestanding sign to incorporate
the new logo, but that will be within the same size of the freestanding sign that's existing today,
and adding an ice chest on the front side of the store. Also incorporating a Redbox and a bottle
redemption, and what I was also corrected from the Cumberland Farms representative this
evening is there isn't a bottle redemption in the store currently. This will be actually a new item,
the bottle redemption and the Redbox. They have implemented these throughout the region.
Obviously it will be to add customers. They haven't seen a substantial increase in traffic, and it
seems to work with the customers and merchandise that they have at the store. One other thing
was relative to Staff comments. I have provided, or have, this evening, for copies revised
existing plans which does add those items that are missing that Staff Notes, that I can submit
today. I also have a revised floor plan that places the freezer/storage unit in the same location
as the site plan denotes it. So we have corrected that, and with regards to Keith's concern
relative to parking and circulation, we are willing to propose additional parking spaces along the
curve which is right adjacent to the freestanding sign. I don't know if any of you were there this
morning or at any morning, but customers tend to park right in that bend, and we're willing to
actually have specific parking spaces for that and denote it to obviously assist with the structure
and the flow so people know where the parking spaces would be allowed. The other side of the
site, which I guess would be considered the eastern side of the site, it appears from the plan that
I received from corporate today, that those are actually banked parking spaces when the original
site plan was approved, and I assume that was because we wanted to preserve the permeable
area that we wouldn't obviously go forward with those, and at this time Cumberland Farms
doesn't think that that side we should really implement those parking spaces, again, to keep and
maintain the flow of traffic that is there today, as opposed to having people backing out of there,
right near the canopies and the immediate adjacent areas, but I wanted to at least clarify that.
Kevin, I don't know if you wanted to add anything at this point? All right. I'll submit the, this is
the additional parking spaces which are right (lost words).
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're right, people park there anyway.
MR. FORD-Yes.
MS. BITTER-Relative to the dumpster, the numbers, if you needed them, was we're actually
going to have a 403 square foot area that we're putting the dumpsters in, or, I'm sorry, a 403
square foot area that we're putting grass in, 264 square foot where the new dumpster will be.
So there will be 139 square feet of additional permeable surface.
MR. OBORNE-Any trees being removed with the relocation?
MS. BITTER-1 do not believe so.
MR. HUNTINGTON-It does not appear.
MR. OBORNE-At all?
MR. HUNTINGTON-That we're going to be removing trees. There is one tree that we're going
to, to the side of that, on the new plan, from what I was seeing, comparing the old to the new.
MS. BITTER-That's the existing, and no light fixture would have to be relocated either. That
was.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I see that. Yes, I picked that up today. It looks like these, this tree is
definitely going to be disturbed, but if you say no trees are going down, no trees are going down.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think they're saying, now, Keith, that the dumpster is going to be put
on pavement, on what's the existing pavement now.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. OBORNE-Not according to this plan.
MS. BITTER-No, there will be new area that will be disturbed for the dumpster.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. BITTER-It's the old area that we're going to make grass.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Gotcha. All right.
MS. BITTER-That's what I'm saying.
MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Okay. I misunderstood.
MS. BITTER-And if there is a tree that's going to be disturbed, I guess we would just relocate it
further toward the, I'm sorry, to the west.
MR. OBORNE-Or east.
MS. BITTER-Or the east. Either way.
MR. FORD-Toward Ridge.
MS. BITTER-We don't anticipate it, but if it comes to that.
MR. OBORNE-Okay.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else you wanted to add?
MS. BITTER-No, I think I covered everything, and relative to engineering comments, we're
obviously willing to submit erosion control plans during final and obtain engineering signoff.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'll open it up for questions, comments from the Board? I had a hard
time finding, on the site plan, where the bottle redemption area is. You have an elevation that
shows the Redbox and the ice chest, but I didn't see where the.
MS. BITTER-It would be in the back corner, too, in the, I guess it's the south.
MR. HUNSINGER-So is it inside the building or outside the building?
MS. BITTER-Outside.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's outside.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Right on that pad where the air tower is.
MR. OBORNE-They're going to move the air tower. They're going to build a wall, three sided.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Built a three sided shed. You can actually see one that we did on Bay
Road, one in Glens Falls we just built, very, matches the building for the most part, and
maintainable. We put the (lost word) machine inside of there, along with the trash bin so they
can maintain the garbage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUNTINGTON-It has a light in it and everything else.
MR. FORD-How many parking spaces are going to be in that northwest area?
MR. HUNTINGTON-Appears to be five.
MS. BITTER-1 think the total's 21.
MR. HUNTINGTON-For a total of 21 on site.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. FORD-1 know there's limited potential, and I know people use that area for parking now, but
to encourage more parking there, I'm concerned with pedestrian safety, coming in off Quaker
and off Ridge.
MS. BITTER-We're open to either way.
MR. FORD-There's times right now when it's tight.
MS. BITTER-Right. I mean, we're open either way. We were just trying to alleviate Keith's
concern that there wasn't going to be enough parking, as well as try to structure the people that
are parking there now. So, you know, we're not set in stone with that number.
MR. FORD-1 appreciate your effort there. I just had to express that safety concern.
MR. KREBS-I'm not sure, Tom, whether it's going to change, though, because when I've been
there, that's exactly where three or four cars park.
MR. FORD-Yes, and if we put five spots there.
MR. DEEB-Do you expect an increase in the movie rental by moving the Redbox outside?
MS. BITTER-The Redbox doesn't actually exist there today. Is that correct? Right, it's going to
be a new item. So it has, either generates the customers that are there, or it does become a
destination location, depending on or the customers, if there's Redbox customers that are in the
immediate vicinity, then obviously they're going to travel to the closest location. So we hope to
bring new customers to the site.
MR. FORD-I'm sorry to ask you to repeat this, but what was the rationale for not putting the
additional parking spaces in the east quadrant of the lot?
MS. BITTER-Well, these are the ones. I mean, they were originally banked there from the
original site plan approval. That's the understanding I have. We're willing to discuss it with you.
We just had concerns relative to cars backing out and then being so close to the immediate
vicinity of the canopy.
MR. HUNTINGTON-We still have the same safety concerns, no matter if they're in that arched
area or there. People are still crossing traffic, against the traffic.
MS. BITTER-And obviously we're just trying to keep it on the pavement if we can.
MR. FORD-The difference that I see is that there may be the same amount of traffic, but the
potential for traffic coming in off Quaker at a higher rate of speed than they're in the parking lot
or off Ridge turning into that area where we're encouraging more pedestrian traffic.
MS. BITTER-Right. I mean, Tom, to address that, we probably could do it in the corner there
immediately adjacent to where the Redbox is going to be placed, at that back bend, for lack of a
better word. I'm sorry, right, the bottle redemption, in the back corner. That way it's a far
enough distance from the canopy, but it still has them not as close to, obviously, the entrance
and exit points.
MR. HUNTINGTON-But you're still going to get people parking there.
MR. FORD-1 understand, yes, but, you know, if we're going to approve five parking spots and we
have a safety concern about it, we need to express that safety concern and we can't stop them,
you know, unless we're going to vegetate it or do something with it to prevent people from
parking there, but when you put a designated parking spot there, you're encouraging.
MR. KREBS-There's certainly plenty of land to the east.
MS. BITTER-Right, that's the area I was talking about, Don. Like in this back corner here, back
bend.
MR. OBORNE-It would be where the (lost word)?
MS. BITTER-Correct.
MR. MAGOWAN-So, Tom, are you asking to eliminate that one parking spot in front of the bottle
redemption?
27
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. FORD-No, I'm looking at the five that would be down in that corner where Quaker and
Ridge come together. Because people come wheeling off, especially off Ridge into that area,
and if they're going in for gas and there are people in those five parking spots, being pedestrians
going into the shop, it could be a hazard, a safety hazard. I would rather see them on the east
portion of the lot, realizing I can't stop them from parking there, but I don't have to encourage
them by designating five parking spots there.
MR. HUNSINGER-How many parking spots do we feel we need to mark?
MS. BITTER-We're already adding, right now there's 14.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MS. BITTER-So we were originally going to add two. So our grand total with the new proposal
was 21, and again, we're willing to work with you on that number, but we just thought.
MR. FORD-That 21 included the five on that corner?
MS. BITTER-Right. So if you relocate those five on the corner to the opposite corner, across the
lot.
MR. HUNSINGER-Can you fit five in there in parallel, in parallel to the curb?
MS. BITTER-We might have to dip into it.
MR. OBORNE-That would be pretty tight.
MS. BITTER-We probably would have to dip into it.
MR. HUNTINGTON-You could probably get a couple, but not five, from what I can see.
MS. BITTER-Yes, because the original one had it dipping into the pavement it was.
MR. HUNTINGTON-You can't go beyond that first bend coming off of Quaker Road. You're
going to have to keep it between the first and second bend, because you can't impede the traffic
coming in and out.
MR. OBORNE-And you're talking about with the canopy. That's the main concern.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Right. That's what I was saying, if we dip into that corner at the second
bend, coming off of Quaker, that curb line and try to get, you know, four spots in at least that
helps with the traffic, with the amount that we have. So we'll be going to, what, we have 14. So
we'll go up to 18 spots.
MR. FORD-Go to 18.
MR. HUNTINGTON-So we're still increasing some, but it means additional pavement that we're
going to have to add and take away from the green area on site.
MR. HUNSINGER-But you're not cutting into the tree canopy at all. You're just cutting into the
lawn.
MS. BITTER-Right. No, it would be where those lights are essentially.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Right. It'll be between the second light you see on that picture and the third
light.
MR. HUNSINGER-So right where the arrow is.
MS. BITTER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-What orientation are you thinking?
MS. BITTER-The orientation.
MR. HUNTINGTON-1 would say they'd pull straight in.
28
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. OBORNE-Pull straight in.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Right. I can't see them paralleling there because you only get maybe two
spots there.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR. FORD-Right.
MR. HUNTINGTON-So, I mean, if we're okay with two spots, that works.
MR. FORD-It's a fairly straight on shot in there anyway, unless you're coming in off Quaker at
that easternmost access.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Right. You're going to have to swing to get in a little bit more when you're
coming in off of Quaker, coming from the east.
MR. FORD-That would be my preference to have it there.
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a fear that there won't be enough parking?
MS. BITTER-1 don't believe so.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So you feel you need the additional spots.
MS. BITTER-We were only doing, we were doing the re-striping, which occurred for the
additional two spaces, and then we only discussed the additional parking spaces when Staff
raised it as a concern. Internally, they didn't think that the additional spaces were needed.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Also you have eight locations at the dispensers, too, that the customers that
are also using the Redbox.
MS. BITTER-Right, the canopies.
MR. HUNTINGTON-And merchandise at the store are also parking at the canopy, too when
they're dispensing gas. So there's eight more spots there that people are using. So there's a lot
of parking.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-And that's put in to, that's part of the calculation, certainly.
MR. FORD-Thank you.
MS. BITTER-You're welcome.
MR. OBORNE-1 don't know how you want to approach this or how you want to come to a
resolution on this. Do you want to see a new plan? Obviously that would require a tabling, or
give firm direction, I guess.
MS. BITTER-We would be willing to explain it as detailed as possible. Because we were trying
to get to, obviously, the reimaging as soon as possible.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from the Board? We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the Board on this
project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll open the public hearing. Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received. I will go ahead and
close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
29
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-It's a Type II SEQRA. So no SEQRA review is required.
MR. MAGOWAN-Is that the owner of the store behind you?
MS. BITTER-Yes, right here, Cumberland Farms representatives.
MR. MAGOWAN-Have you had any, has there been many instances where people walking
across from that corner, coming across the parking lot, that you've heard the screech of the
tires, or, you know, that was a close one?
BRIAN VAN BUREN
MR. VAN BUREN-I'm sorry. I'm Brian VanBuren, and to answer your question, no. There's
been no incidents at all.
MR. DEEB-People are going to park there anyway.
MR. VAN BUREN-And they do.
MR. MAGOWAN-See, the flow, to me, has always come off of Quaker and whipped right in to
the gas, you know, they come in and go that way. They'll come across the, you know, off of
Ridge, and, you know, but you've got the high gas pumps. They're almost like mini little speed
bumps. So it's not like you go flying around that way. I see them coming off and zip right in to
the canopy or cutting across and coming across Quaker underneath the canopy. I mean, mainly
the people that I've seen zipping in and out of are there basically going to get gas in a hurry.
MR. VAN BUREN-Yes.
MR. DEEB-I think it's more dangerous when people walk across the canopy to the store.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's where I feel more of the people from the canopy to the store.
MR. HUNTINGTON-If you say that those parking spots are delineated, I understand that, over
there you're saying they're fine, but put them over to the southeast, but you've still got people
walking across the traffic. So you have it both ways.
MR. HUNSINGER-Well, and part of my thought for mentioning the southeast side is a
recognition that, if I come in to that parking lot and I don't see a place to park, you're going to
naturally go over there because there's room, you know, so it's the same kind of logic, well, if
people are likely to park there anyway, why not just delineate a couple of spots.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, one of my vehicles is a big truck, and it's a dually. So I find a lot of the
parking spots in any of these convenient stores a little tight for me. So I'm always looking for
that outside edge that's not, you know, marked. I will take the chance of walking across my life,
you know, just to park my truck safely.
MR. FORD-Those five spots should give you sufficient space.
MR. MAGOWAN-I could actually have my trailer on too and I could (lost word) that bend.
MR. HUNTINGTON-If we put these parking spots in the southeast corner you're going to lose
that parallel spot for your trailer.
MR. MAGOWAN-That's true. That's true.
MR. HUNSINGER-How do other people feel about the parallel spots on that curve, on the
northwest corner?
MR. KREBS-My personal feeling is whether you delineate them there or not, they're going to
park there.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Right, and if you're going to have an accident, you're going to have an
accident. It's just, it's human nature. You can't dictate safety.
MR. FORD-I'm just suggesting by not designating them people who want to park there are going
to park there, but if you designate them, you're then encouraging that, and you're encouraging
something that I think is a safety issue. I don't object to anybody parking there. I don't care.
30
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, I'm happy with all the spaces around the building. That's enough. I
mean, like you said, if you get an overflow, people are going to park where they want to.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Can we agree maybe not designate them by marking them, but know that
people are going to park there.
MR. FORD-Yes, that's all I'm suggesting.
MS. BITTER-The 16 that we originally proposed.
MR. HUNTINGTON-The 16 that we have. I mean, if we're good with that.
MS. BITTER-Stay with the 16.
MR. MAGOWAN-And just a disclosure on the back of one of your receipts that you're not
responsible for people walking back, okay.
MS. BITTER-Drink your coffee before you leave.
MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, I'm with Tom on that one. Just don't mark them. That's fine, and that
with what's around the building.
MR. HUNTINGTON-And that should take care of our parking comment, and then we don't have
to worry about taking the green space away.
MS. BITTER-Right.
MR. HUNSINGER-Did you address the engineering comments?
MS. BITTER-Relative to the engineering comments, we're going to submit an erosion control
plan.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. BITTER-We intend to do that, as well as do the dumpster enclosure details that we don't
have a problem with (lost word) that.
MR. DEEB-And no trees are going to be removed?
MS. BITTER-If they are, we'll relocate them.
MR. HUNTINGTON-We'll relocate it or we can shift the dumpster, if it's within a foot or two, we
can shift the dumpster. We have some room there.
MR. DEEB-The dumpster would be enclosed?
MR. HUNTINGTON-They're all enclosed, yes, and we have room to shift a little left and right.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we also haven't talked about the landscaping buffer to the south, but
you're also not disturbing anything.
MS. BITTER-Right, we're not disturbing anything. There's a fairly decent hedgerow. Anything
else from the Board?
MR. MAGOWAN-You're not going to paint the building white and green like you did on Route 9?
MR. HUNSINGER-Don't paint the brick.
MR. MAGOWAN-Just put the white and green around the canopy and the new sign.
MR. HUNSINGER-It's hard to tell on this new site plan that you submitted this evening, but does
that address the Staff comments regarding utility details, lighting and landscaping?
MS. BITTER-Right. That was the intention.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. HUNTINGTON-1 have three full size sets here.
31
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we've satisfied that. Okay. Well, if there's no further comments or
questions, I'll entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #23-2012 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC.
Tax Map ID 303.5-1-24
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes the installation of a 220 square foot refrigeration unit to the existing 2,952
square foot convenience store. Further site improvements to include new sidewalks, signage,
and dumpster enclosure among other minor changes. Modification to approved site plans in a
Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/19/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2012 CUMBERLAND FARMS, INC., Introduced by
Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-
080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) Type II SEQRA;
3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
4) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to
be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy;
5) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping & lighting plans;
6) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator.
7) And we just want to make sure that, in fact, the utility details and easements, existing
lighting and existing landscaping are designated on the site plan.
Duly adopted this 19th day of April 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you.
SITE PLAN NO. 24-2012 J. MICHAEL PUGH & MICHAEL GREENWOOD OWNER(S) SAME
AS APPLICANT ZONING MS-MAIN STREET LOCATION 20 SOUTH WESTERN AVENUE
APPLICANT PROPOSES OUTDOOR RETAIL SALE OF GOODS. PROPOSED RETAIL USES
IN THE MS ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS
REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 0.24 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 30.7-1-5 SECTION 179-9
MIKE GREENWOOD & MICHAEL PUGH, PRESENT
MR. HUNSINGER-Whenever you're ready, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Yes. Well, basically it's a vacant parcel in the Main Street area. They want to do
some outdoor retail. The only concern that I have, if they're concerns, is, once again, pedestrian
32
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
safety and parking, and I think if you visited the site, you know what's going on. So, I'll turn it
over to the Board.
MR. HUNSINGER-We did. Good evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record.
MR. GREENWOOD-I'm Mike Greenwood.
MR. PUGH-I'm Michael Pugh.
MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to tell us what you plan to do?
MR. GREENWOOD-Well, we want to do an outdoor market. We just want to sell some indoor
and outdoor items, decorative planters, picnic tables, local carvings, hanging baskets, indoor
and outdoor plants, possibly some Christmas trees in the Fall. We've owned the space for a
while. We actually planned on developing it. We came in and saw you guys a couple of years
ago, but the economy isn't really favorable to that yet. So we're kind of holding some vacant
land and just hoping to make a little revenue with it.
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else?
MR. GREENWOOD-Keith had a couple of concerns, and I think we've answered them. Actually
the map, the site plan that we gave you guys we've kind of modified it and hopefully in a
favorable way. Keith had some concerns about parking, and he made a couple of great
suggestions, and I hope these alleviate that a little bit.
MR. OBORNE-You really thought they were great suggestions?
MR. GREENWOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I appreciate that.
MR. GREENWOOD-You're awesome, Keith.
MR. HUNSINGER-We got that on the record, too, Keith.
MR. OBORNE-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think this does work a little better. Yes.
MR. GREENWOOD-Well, I know Tom was going to be concerned about safety, and we want to
make sure we don't direct people through the areas where people are going to be walking. So
that was, and that's logical.
MR. DEEB-Is this a year round application?
MR. GREENWOOD-Well, we're not applying for it seasonally. I don't know how late the
Christmas trees may run. I don't imagine we're going to have anything we're going to be able to
do over there in the wintertime, but we didn't want to limit it unless you guys did.
MR. HUNSINGER-But you have a portable canopy.
MR. GREENWOOD-A 10 by 10 portable canopy. We designated a retail space. We designated
it as 25 by 40.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. GREENWOOD-But inside of that, somewhere inside of that we want to be able to place a
10 by 10 canopy, just for weather and that type of stuff, and basically that would be the only
structure of any kind and it would be portable.
MR. DEEB-Where would you put your Christmas trees?
MR. GREENWOOD-Inside the display area. I mean, I guess outside of being more specific than
that, just somewhere inside the display area. They probably wouldn't even be under the
canopy. We're going to probably have a picnic table sitting under the canopy and have some
place where someone can sit and stay dry.
MR. PUGH-We're not sure we're going there yet.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-So is there any power inside the canopy?
MR. GREENWOOD-We own the adjoining parcel and it has a home on it and we've kind of got
cooperation of our tenant there. So we're going to have, you know, access to some amenities if
needed, but we don't intend to run anything, you know, permanent or anything like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-What kind of Code issues does that raise, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-Well, they need to build to the build to line, and, you know, have a certain
amount of landscaping.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I'm thinking of just, you know, power and?
MR. OBORNE-This is such a, I don't know how to describe it, a minor site plan, what it falls
under is Site Plan Review for retail use, which is an allowable use in the Main Street zone. As
far as power goes, I have no issues with the Zoning Code on that.
MR. HUNSINGER-No, I'm thinking of Building Code, not Zoning Code.
MR. OBORNE-1 don't think there's any issues with that, either.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. GREENWOOD-1 don't see us needing any power. I guess that's a better answer to your
question. We don't need any power. We're not going to operate after dark, anything like that.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. GREENWOOD-If we wanted to plug in a radio is more along the lines of what I was
thinking.
MR. DEEB-So you're not going to run an extension cord over there?
MR. GREENWOOD-No.
MR. PUGH-No.
MR. GREENWOOD-I've got a DeWalt with an 18 volt battery. It'll last all day.
MR. HUNSINGER-There you go. Any other questions? Okay. We do have a public hearing
scheduled this evening. Ma'am, did you want to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any written comments, Keith?
MR. OBORNE-No written comments.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, and let the record show that no
comments were received. I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HUNSINGER-Unless there's any other questions or comments.
MR. MAGOWAN-Are you a pouring slab?
MR. GREENWOOD-No. No, we're going to do permeable stone for the parking, just for the, you
know, it'll route them in through Southwestern and out through Columbia. We thought that was
a pretty safe way to do it, and we'll just do a permeable stone for that.
MR. FORD-Good interim use.
MR. GREENWOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-That's what Craig and I thought also. It's a good purpose for the lot until the
economy turns and you realize your dreams and all that.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, it's not a farmer's market, but the Code does encourage, you know,
seasonal, you know, retail sales. I mean, I think this is pretty consistent with that.
MR. FORD-1 agree.
MR. OBORNE-Dave, did you have a question?
MR. DEEB-Five parking spots?
MR. GREENWOOD-Yes, we had laid out five, three additional and, you know, kind of overflow
and then two, we assume it's going to be more of a pull in, pick out your item and head out. We
don't expect people to be shopping there for very long.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It's a Type 11 SEQRA so no SEQRA review is necessary unless we
identify an issue. I'll entertain a motion.
MR. KREBS-Okay.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #24-2012 J. MICHAEL PUGH & MICHAEL GREENWOOD
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes outdoor retail sale of goods. Proposed retail uses in the MS zone require
Planning Board review and approval.
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/19/2012;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-2012 J. MICHAEL PUGH & MICHAEL
GREENWOOD, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas
Ford:
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179-9-
080], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as
stated in the Zoning Code;
2) Type 11 SEAR;
3) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after
approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work.
Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on
compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
4) Waiver requests granted: stormwater mgmt., grading, landscaping, topography, E & S.
Duly adopted this 19th day of April 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR. GREENWOOD-Thank you.
MR. PUGH-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
MR. OBORNE-Mike, you'll get a letter in the mail. You need to close it out and then you're good
to go.
MR. GREENWOOD-Very good. Thanks, Keith.
MR. HUNSINGER-Before we consider a motion for adjournment, we do have a handout. This is
the continuation of a discussion I started at the end of the meeting Tuesday night, the
35
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
conversation with the Town Attorney regarding the Verizon cell tower application. There is an e-
mail here that the Town Attorney had issued, along with a resolution. I know you only just saw it
this evening, but I don't know if there's any questions, comments. Mike could not make the
meeting this evening. So he offered to put it in e-mail form so that we could consider it.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we just need to make a motion for an extension to May 31St
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-For the purpose of allowing Verizon and the Town to determine the scope
of the engineering study.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Are you making that as a motion?
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR. FORD-And it would be conditioned on Verizon's agreement, to consent to further extension.
MR. OBORNE-If we could do it verbatim, it would be a great appreciation.
MR. HUNSINGER-You can just say in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff.
MR. OBORNE-That'll work.
MR. HUNSINGER-If anyone would so.
MR. FORD-I'll second it.
RESOLUTION RE: SP #7-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS
MOTION TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF THE 150 DAY PERIOD TO MAY 31, 2012, FOR
SITE PLAN NO. 7-2012 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS (1127 WEST
MT. RD.) FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING VERIZON AND THE TOWN TO
DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF THE ENGINEERING STUDIES THAT WILL BE PERFORMED
ON THE TOWN'S PROPERTY. THE EXTENSION TO MAY 31ST WOULD BE
CONDITIONED ON VERIZON'S AGREEMENT TO CONSENT TO FURTHER EXTENSIONS
NEEDED IN ORDER TO ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME FOR COMPLETION AND REVIEW OF
THE ENGINEERS' REPORT BEFORE THE BOARD RENDERS A DECISION ON VERIZON'S
APPLICATION, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Thomas Ford:
Duly adopted this 19th day of April 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else to bring before the Board this evening? My only
comment on the resolution that we just approved is that by passing this we're not implying that
we believe the 150 days is up. That was my only issue, because apparently the attorney for
Verizon seems to believe that the 150 days will expire or already has expired or whatever, but I
think we're covered.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If we say we're extending it, we're one party.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-If we say we're extending it, they'd have a hard time saying that there's
agreement that it isn't.
MR. FORD-But I understand what Chris is saying, the fact that we are asking that it be
extending, we're admitting that there's a 150 day limit.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-Potentially.
MR. HUNSINGER-He refers to it as the shot clock.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, that's what it's called. Yes.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/19/2012)
MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else to bring before the Board this evening?
MR. OBORNE-1 will say that we will have a full slate next month. This is obviously it for this
month. No great shakes as of yet. Bear Mountain has not even gone to the APA as far as I
know, the zip line, and what was the other one. There's another large project out there that is on
hold right now that escapes me. Well, in any event, that's not coming, either. So maybe in
June.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. KREBS-Did everybody notice that Mr. Wick is now head of the LGA?
MR. OBORNE-He is Executive Director.
MR. SCHONEWOLF-I move we adjourn.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF APRIL 19,
2012, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Krebs:
Duly adopted this 19th day of April, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everybody.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger, Chairman
37